Kent CCC Sign Muttiah Muralitharan

[Rik]

First of all Rik me lad, I am 40 years old - do not tell me to 'grow up'.

It doesn't matter how old you are, it's how old you act. It's not my fault if you can't act your age.

Second, my opinion, shared by many in the cricket world and on this board, are not 'childish snipings'...........as the great former Indian spinner Bishen Bedi said, "If that action is legal, I don't know how to bowl".

From my experiance on this board, which I have read for 2 months shy of a year, with a few exceptions the people who slag off Murali also happen to come up with statements such as "Darren Lehmann is a better bowler than any English spinners"

All that has been proven is that the ICC does not, for some unknown reason, wish to tackle the Murali issue and his blatantly dubious action........my best guess is I have no idea why.

They put him through a full examination with photographs of every point of delivery to come to a conclusion. If you look at the photographs, read the report then also understand that Murali cannot straighten his elbow and also that it is written into their rules that such a condition is not counted as throwing, all they can do is allow him to play.

What concerns me the most is that his bowling is a blight on the game, and it's history, and we will soon see hundreds of young Sri Lankans attemting to bowl just like their hero, Murali.

What? Like break their elbows at an early age so they can't straighten it properly then exercise their wrists so much that they can almost turn over themselves? It has been said many, many times that Murali is a one off, a set of circumstances gave him the condition he has, and they are not likely to be repeated.

He may well be, in fact he probably is, a lovely fellow, but he does not bowl within the rules - if some supposed 'deformity' of the elbow is the reason, then, I'm sorry, but he shouldn't be playing test cricket!

I'm sorry but he should, you keep saying he does not bowl within the rules yet you forget, he DOES!Read the rules and you will find that however odd or unfair you find his action, it IS within the rules.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It doesn't matter how old you are, it's how old you act. It's not my fault if you can't act your age.

I can't believe that you of all people have the tenacity to tell someone else that after your history with your good friend Marc, among other things.

Originally posted by Rik I'm sorry but he should, you keep saying he does not bowl within the rules yet you forget, he DOES!Read the rules and you will find that however odd or unfair you find his action, it IS within the rules. [/B]

Would you care to quote the rules and the date at which they were set into place/ammended for the benefit of us all?

 

[Rik]

I can't believe that you of all people have the tenacity to tell someone else that after your history with your good friend Marc, among other things.

I never said I was perfect.

 

[Kenny]

So Rikky, If I think Murali is a chucker, then I can't act my age and I should grow up? :rolleyes:

And don't worry, your generalisation about people who share my opinion about Murali doesn't extend to me - I don't even think Lehmann is a good bat, let alone contemplate his bowling!!

We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid - it just ****es me off every time I see that guy 'bowl'.........

 

[Rik]

So Rikky, If I think Murali is a chucker, then I can't act my age and I should grow up? :rolleyes:

No it's because you appear to have taken that view despite evidence proving you wrong and then, as if to spite it, you pass off that evidence as rubbish. And don't call me "Rikky," I want nothing to do with that waste of space Clarke.

And don't worry, your generalisation about people who share my opinion about Murali doesn't extend to me - I don't even think Lehmann is a good bat, let alone contemplate his bowling!!

I was just showing that most people who comment on the Murali issue and come up with your view have not checked up if they have any basis, claiming that it's not legal when it is in the rules, and also that they tend to spout rather a lot of rubbish. There are some noteable exceptions who's views in most other topics I respect, although this topic seems to be very much a "Yeah he looks like he chucks it so he's got to be cheating"

We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid - it just ****es me off every time I see that guy 'bowl'.........

This is what has happened every time this topic has been brought up, some people just cannot accept it, although I have actually seen some people look at those photographs and their view has been changed. In my view, which is supported by rather a lot of evidence, Murali has done nothing wrong, he's an excitingly different bowler, a one off. He keeps getting better and better. His record is the best by any spinner in Test and ODI Cricket. Glenn McGrath's action annoys me but I don't try and pick holes in him all the time, although you can't help but find it funny when he picks a player out who he intends to dominate then falls flat on his face.

 

[Rik]

In order to assess that a bowler is indeed throwing within the meaning of law 24.2, an umpire must establish two things.
a) The point in time, of the release of the ball from the hand.
b) That the elbow of the bowling arm straightened, even slightly, just before releasing the ball.

Dr. Goonetilleke's investigation of throwing revealed the following facts.
1. The significant time period available for an umpire to assess that Murali was indeed throwing within the meaning of law 24.2 is 0.08 seconds (2/25).
2. A bent arm, pivoting about the shoulder, can give the illusion of straightening, when viewed only from one direction, without the actual straightening occurring.
3. Even a super slow motion camera recording the bowler's action from the position occupied by the Umpire (Umpire's view) will fail to positively detect any throwing action unless supported by additional measurements.

Taken from http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/island.html
This also explains a lot http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/faq.html

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Taken from http://www-ieem.ust.hk/dfaculty/ravi/cricket/island.html

I'm convinced now that neither Murali nor Lawson nor Brett Lee throw because in each case, "Even a super slow motion camera recording the bowler's action from the position occupied by the Umpire (Umpire's view) will fail to positively detect any throwing action unless supported by additional measurements".

 

[Rik]

I'm convinced now that neither Murali nor Lawson nor Brett Lee throw because in each case, "Even a super slow motion camera recording the bowler's action from the position occupied by the Umpire (Umpire's view) will fail to positively detect any throwing action unless supported by additional measurements".

That comment shows what most of the anti-Murali group share, a total lack of interist in even thinking they might be wrong, not even open to suggestion, the need to try and dissmiss the relevence of the information before it can be used. And you wonder why I ask people to "Grow Up" :rolleyes:

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So when someone disagrees with you they're childish and now I agree with you and you get upset with me and start back calling names. :rolleyes:

It was a genuine comment Rik. I can't see Jermaine Lawson's action being illegal based on that interpretation.

Just so you know, this is a genuine comment too. :rolleyes:

 

[Rik]

Law 24.3. Definition of fair delivery ? the arm

A ball is fairly delivered in respect of the arm if, once the bowler's arm has reached the level of the shoulder in the delivery swing, the elbow joint is not straightened partially or completely from that point until the ball has left the hand. This definition shall not debar a bowler from flexing or rotating the wrist in the delivery swing.

There is nothing in there saying that a bowler with an arm which cannot straighten fully is doing anything wrong, admittedly there is nothing saying it is legal either. What makes his action legal is that his elbow straightens as far as it can, which is obvious in the pictures shown on the link that Rich put up. Murali's arm is as straight as it can naturally be, and because of the break it is bent and gives the impression that he throws. There's enough evidence in those pictures to make even an MP admit he was wrong! Also Murali's action is mainly wrist based which is also mentioned in this passage as being within the rules.

It's all here: http://www.lords.org/cricket/lw_0000000050.asp

 

[Rik]

So when someone disagrees with you they're childish and now I agree with you and you get upset with me and start back calling names. :rolleyes:

It was a genuine comment Rik. I can't see Jermaine Lawson's action being illegal based on that interpretation.

Just so you know, this is a genuine comment too. :rolleyes:

Ok sorry then, I got the wrong idea. I do think Lawson chucks however, his arm is very badly bent from what I've seen. That link I gave didn't give definative proof though.

 

[Langeveldt]

Having a hyperextension is a medical thing then, which puts people at a distinct advantage if they are a cricketer... therefore people with hyperextensions should not be allowed to play at the top level because it is not fair...

Was it Bishen Bedi who said "Would you let a blind man drive a bus?"

I know Murali is not a cheat, but there is little doubt that his medical oddity has a massive effect on his bowling..

 

[Neil Pickup]

People with hyperextensions should not be allowed to play at the top level because it is not fair...

Was it Bishen Bedi who said "Would you let a blind man drive a bus?"

I know Murali is not a cheat, but there is little doubt that his medical oddity has a massive effect on his bowling..

Bedi's comment is not relevant to the situation.

Hyperextension of elbows/wrists is a medical oddity.. but it's not that rare. My left elbow goes 10-15 degrees further than my right because I broke it two years ago.

By the same logic, exceptionally tall people are medical oddities, so should be banned from playing top level basketball, because that's also an unfair advantage... :rolleyes:

Also, let's ban fat people from Sumo Wrestling.

And small people from being Coxswains.

Catch my drift?

The deformity in Murali's arm makes it appear from some angles that the arm is bent during the bowling action when in fact it isn't, and the link Rich posted shows this evidence.

Someone dig out the link for the last time we "discussed" this...

 

[Kenny]

However, Bedi's comment that "If that action is legal then I can't bowl" is VERY relevant.
Biased media? Optical illusions? Yeah riiigght.

I'm with Dean Jones, Geoff Lawson, Michael holding, Bedi, Adam Gilchrist, and the hundreds of other cricketing legends who know that this guy is dodgy.

Any intelligent person who has seen a photo of Murali from any angle just before he releases the ball and doesn't think there is something very wrong, is either a fool, ignorant, or works for the ICC.

As my last word on the matter, I will say this - if Murali ever becomes the greatest test wicket taker in test history, the game will be forever discredited.......and I will cease to watch the game I love until someone overtakes him.
That is how strongly I feel about the matter.

 

[Rik]

However, Bedi's comment that "If that action is legal then I can't bowl" is VERY relevant.
Biased media? Optical illusions? Yeah riiigght.

I'm with Dean Jones, Geoff Lawson, Michael holding, Bedi, Adam Gilchrist, and the hundreds of other cricketing legends who know that this guy is dodgy.

Just because your a great player doesn't mean that your opinion holds more grounds than evidence. Just look at Dennis Lillee - Great player but someone who talks serious ammounts of rubbish.

Any intelligent person who has seen a photo of Murali from any angle just before he releases the ball and doesn't think there is something very wrong, is either a fool, ignorant, or works for the ICC.

Don't start this, dragging in insults is not going to help. People who don't think there is anything wrong believe as such because there is definative EVIDENCE showing that nothing, is in fact, wrong.

As my last word on the matter, I will say this - if Murali ever becomes the greatest test wicket taker in test history, the game will be forever discredited.......and I will cease to watch the game I love until someone overtakes him.
That is how strongly I feel about the matter.

Somehow I doubt it will be the last word on the matter but anyway...
If Warne became the world record holder would you stop watching cricket as well? Remember the guy's a cheat, he brought the game into disrepute didn't he? Somehow I don't think that would happen either. The game will not be discredited and it's sad that you feel this way, it will be a major landmark for Sri Lanka and should be celebrated as such. But then if you feel so strongly that you don't want to watch cricket again then that's your loss and not mine.

 

[marc71178]

If Warne became the world record holder would you stop watching cricket as well? Remember the guy's a cheat, he brought the game into disrepute didn't he?

He did, but he was punished for it, so his achievment would not be diminished IMO.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He did, but he was punished for it, so his achievment would not be diminished IMO.

Dead on. His punishment of a year is harsh, but fitting IMO.

 

[Rik]

He did, but he was punished for it, so his achievment would not be diminished IMO.

Yes, but since, by the laws of cricket, Murali has done nothing wrong then whatever he achieves is not diminished either.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but since, by the laws of cricket, Murali has done nothing wrong then whatever he achieves is not diminished either.

I was careful not to post on Murali since I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it - I'm on the fence.

 

[Rik]

I was careful not to post on Murali since I'm not entirely sure where I stand on it - I'm on the fence.

As long as your not saying that "Any intelligent person who has seen a photo of Murali from any angle just before he releases the ball and doesn't think there is something very wrong, is either a fool, ignorant, or works for the ICC." then fair enough. The whole issue is very complicated.